IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 16052 OF 2026 Ajazul Haque Khan …Petitioner Versus ICICI Bank Limited …Respondent Mr. Vijay S. Tiwari, a/w Mr. Aayush Pandey for the Petitioner.

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Senior Counsel a/w Ms. Resham Vasant Savla i/b Manilal Kher Ambalal and Co. Advocates for Respondent, ICICI Bank Ltd.

CORAM: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

DATE: MAY 7, 2026 Oral Judgement:

Context and Factual Background:

1. This is a Petition filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) impugning an order dated January 15, 2026 (“Impugned Order”) under Section 17 of the Act, attaching various bank accounts associated with the Petitioner’s income-tax Permanent Account Number. The Impugned Order was passed ex parte, by an arbitrator appointed by an online dispute resolution platform (“ODR Platform”)

appointed by the Respondent, ICICI Bank Ltd. (“ICICI”).

2. The Petitioner has accused ICICI of mis-selling, incentivising him to retire his pre-existing loans from other lenders, only to realise that he did not get a better deal because those lenders charged him additionally for re- financing the loan, which was not explained to him. He also contends that monies were actually not fully given to him and the earlier lenders charged him additionally as well.

3. The Impugned Order is cryptic. It simply states that ICICI lent a personal loan to the Petitioner and it has not been repaid, and goes on to direct a disclosure of assets, furnishing of security in three days, and a debit freeze on all bank accounts. Based on this, Axis Bank would freeze the account of the Petitioner. Apparently a templated order, the Impugned Order records how no one has challenged the formation of the Arbitral Tribunal and therefore, that the right to challenge has been lost. The Impugned Order speaks about how the ODR Platform is recognised by this High Court and the Kerala High Court – a facet wholly irrelevant to an interim order apart from subtly hinting at assumed legitimacy of such an order.

4. Paragraph 8 of the Impugned Order states that ICICI “referred” the dispute to arbitration but does not indicate how and when arbitration was invoked and how the 30-day wait period for selection of arbitrator ran its course. In the twelve paragraphs of the Impugned Order, apart from the date of the agreement, dates and events are absent in the narration of facts. It does not even speak about the date of the interim application under Section 17 or the contents of any such application.

5. The Impugned Order refers to the dispute resolution clause in the agreement between the parties and indicates that it provides for a 21-day period for mediation and conciliation to run its course under the ODR Platform’s procedures, failing which, arbitration would commence. The Impugned Order contains no articulation of any facts in the context of a prima facie case, grave and irreparable injury and balance of convenience, except to simply state that there is a power to protect under Section 17 of the Act.

Withdrawal of Arbitration Proceedings:

6. Today, when the matter is called out, Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Learned Advocate for the ICICI submits that the Impugned Order may be set aside because the current arbitration proceedings would be withdrawn, which would work out this Petition. The parties agree to leave it to the Court to appoint an independent online dispute resolution platform for resolution of their disputes, considering the relatively small scale and size of the claim by ICICI against the Petitioner in respect of dues claimed pursuant to a personal loan.

7. In these circumstances, the Impugned Order is quashed and set aside by consent of the parties. All banks including Axis Bank, are directed to immediately lift any debit freeze on the Petitioner’s bank accounts.

8. By consent of the parties, a new Arbitral Tribunal is appointed in the following terms, with a directio